Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T05:26:16.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduced Modulus Acrylic Bone Cement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

Alan S. Litsky ,
Robert M. Rose  and
Clinton T. Rubin
Alan S. Litsky
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusuetts 02139
Robert M. Rose
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusuetts 02139
Clinton T. Rubin
Affiliation:
Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, Massachusetts 01536
Get access

Abstract

Loosening is the dominant long-term problem facing joint replacement surgeons and patients. A probable cause of endoprosthesis loosening is the strain singularity at the material interfaces. The concentration of shear at the bone-cement interface leads to micromotion which precipitates a soft-tissue membrane and resorption of the cancellous bone.

A more compliant cement would substantially reduce the interfacial stresses and serve as a “pillow” between the prosthetic stem and the cancellous bone. We have developed a surgically-workable formulation of a reduced modulus acrylic bone cement — polybutylmethylmethacrylate (PBMMA) — to test this hypothesis. Materials property testing and in vivo implantation are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 55: Symposium G – Biomedical Materials , 1985 , 171
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. NIH Consensus Development Conference, Total Hip Replacement. J. Orthop. Res., 1: 189–234, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Coventry, M.B. Ten-Year Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty. Orthop. Trans., 5:349–350, 1981. Salvati, E.A., Wil-ion, P.D., Jolley, M.N., Vakili, F., Aglietti, P., and Brown, G.C. A Ten-Year Follow-up Study of Our First One Hundred Consecutive Charnley Total Hip Replacements. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 63A:753–767, 1981. Stauffer, R.N. Ten-Year Follow-up Study–of Total Hip Replacement. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 64A:983–990, 1982. Sutherland, C.J., Wilde, A.H., Borden, L.S., and Marks, K.E. A Ten-Year Follow-up of One Hundred Consecutive Muller Curved-Stem Total Hip-Replacement Arthroplasties. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 64A:970–982, 1982.Google Scholar
3. Chandler, H.P., Reineck, F.T., Wixson, R.L., and McCarthy, J.C. Total Hip Replacement in Patients Younger Than Thirty Years Old. A Five-Year Follow-Up Study. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 63A:1426–1434, 1981. Dorr, L.D., Takei, G.K., and Conaty, J.P. Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Less Than Forty-Five Years Old. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 65A:474–479, 1983.Google Scholar
4. Radin, E.L., Rubin, C.T.,rasher, T, , E.L, Lanyon, L.E., Crugnola, A.M., Schiller, A.L., Paul, I.L., and Rose, R.M. Changes in the Bone-Cement Interface After Total Hip Replacement: an in vivo animal study. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 64A:1188–1200, 1982.Google Scholar
5. Gruen, T.A., MciNeice, G.M., and Amstutz, H.C. “Modes of Failure” of Cemented Stem-Type Femoral Components. A Radiographic Analysis of Loosening. Clin. Orthop., 114:17–27, 1979.Google Scholar
6. Harris, W.H. A New Approach to Total Hip Replacement Without Osteotomy of the Greater Trochanter. Clin. Orthop., 106:19–26, 1975.Google Scholar
7. Amstutz, H.C., Markolf, K.L., McNeice, G.M., and Gruen, T.A. Loosening of Total Hip Components: Cause and Prevention. In The Thi: Proceedings of the Fourth Open Scientific MeeTing o the Hip Society. St. Louis: Mosby, C.V., 1976.Google Scholar
8. Oh, I., Carlson, C.E., Tomford, W.W., and Harris, W.H. Improved Fixation of the Femoral Component After Total Hip Replacement Using a Methacrylate Intramedullary Plug. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 60A:608–613, 1978.Google Scholar
9. Bean, D.J., Hollis, J.M., Woo, S.L.-Y., and Convery, F.R. Sustained Pressurization Effects on the Bone-Cement Interface. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 10:146, 1985.Google Scholar
10. Markolf, K.L. and Amstutz, H.C. Penetration and Flow of Acrylic Bone Cement. Clin. Orthop., 121:99–102, 1976. Noble, P.C., Jones, J.J., and Swarts, E. The Rate of Intrusion of Acrylic Bone Cements into Cancellous Bone. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 9: 74, 1984.Google Scholar
11. Harris, W.H., McCarthy, J.C., and O'Neill, D.A. Femoral Component Loosening Using Contemporary Techniques of Femoral Cement Fixation. Bone, J. and Jt. Surg., 64A:1063–1067, 1982.Google Scholar
12. Litchman, H.M., Richman, M.H., Warman, M., and Mitchel, J. Improvement of the Mechanical Properties of Polymethylmethacrylate by Graphite Fiber Reinforcement. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 2:86, 1978. Robinson, R.P., Wright, T.M., and Burstein, A.H. Mechanical 178 Properties of Poly(Methyl Methacrylate) Bone Cements. J. Biomed. Mat. Res., 15: 203–208, 1981. Saha, S. and Pal, S. Improvement of Mechanical Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement by Fiber Reinforcement. J. Biomechanics, 17: 467–478, 1974. Saha, S. and Warman, M.L. Compressive and Shear Properties of Graphite Fiber Reinforced Bone Cements. Orthop. Trans., 3: 169, 1979. Wright, T.M. and Trent, P.S. Mechanical Properties of Aramid Fiber Reinforced Acrylic Bone Cement. J. Mat. Sci., 14:503–505, 1979.Google Scholar
13. Pilliar, R.M., Blackwell, R., MacNab, I., and Cameron, H.U. Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Bone Cement in Orthopedic Surgery. J. Biomed. Mat. Res., 10:893–906, 1976.Google Scholar
14. Burke, D.W., Gates, E.I., and Harris, W.H. Centrifugation as a Method of Improving Tensile and Fatigue Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 66A:1265–1273, 1984.Google Scholar
15. Wiisn, R.L., Lautenschlager, E.P., and Novak, M. Vacuum Mixing of Methylmethacrylate Bone Cement. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 10:327, 1985.Google Scholar
16. Rimnac, C.M. and Wright, T.M. The Effect of Centrifugation on the Fracture Properties of Poly (Methyl Methacrylate) Bone Cement. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 10:326, 1985.Google Scholar
17. Goldring, S.R., Schiller, A.L., Roelke, M., Rourke, C.M., O'Neill, D.A., and Harris, W.H. The Synovial-Like Membrane at the Bone-Cement Interface in Loose Total Hip Replacements and Its Proposed Role in Bone Lysis. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 65A:575–584, 1983.Google Scholar
18. Kim, W.C., Nottingham, P., Luben, R.A., Fineman, G.A.M., and Amstutz, H.C. Detection of Osteoclast-Activating Factor in Membranes Removed at Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 10:148, 1985.Google Scholar
19. Lanyon, L.E., Paul, I.L., RubTn, C.T., Thrasher, E.L., DeLaura, R., Rose, R.M., and Radin., E.L. In Vivo Strain Measurements From Bone and Prosthesis Following Total Hip Replacement. J. Bone and Jt.Surg., 63A:989–1001, 1981. Lanyon, L.E., Rubin, C.T., DeLaura, R.A., and Stableforth, P.G Load Distribution in the Proximal Femur Following Total Hip Replacement. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 7:147, 1982.Google Scholar
20.. Lewis, J.L., Nicola, T., Keer, L.M., Clech, J.P., Steege, J.W., and Wixson, R.L. Failure Processes at the Cancellous Bone-Cement Interface. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 10:144, 1985.Google Scholar
21. Hull, D. An Introduction to Composite Materials. Cambridge:. Cambridge University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
22. Crowninshield, R.D., Brand, R.A., Johnston, R.C., and Milroy, J.C. An Analysis of Femoral Component Stem Design in Total Hip Arthroplasty. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 62A:68–78, 1980.Google Scholar
23. Price, G.F.W. Interim Report on a Modification of Methylmethacrylate Fixation of Prosthesis into Bone. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 60B:13, 1978.Google Scholar
24. Crugnola, A., Ellis, E.J., Radin, E.L., and Rose, R.M. A Second Generation of Acrylic Bone Cements. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 4:63, 1979.Google Scholar
25. Standard SpecTfication for Acrylic Bone Cements. ASTM F451–76. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1976. 179Google Scholar
26. Swenson, L.W., Schurman, D.J., and Piaziali, R.L. Finite Element Temperature Analysis of a Total Hip Replacement and Measurement of PMMA Curing Tempertures. J. Biomed. Mat. Res., 15:83–96, 1981. Lautenschlager, E.P., Stupp, S.I., and Keller, J. C. Structure and Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement, in Functional Behavior of Orthopedic Biomaterials. Ducheyne, P. and Hastings, G.W., eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 1984.Google Scholar
27. Ohnsorge, J. Some Aspects of Polymerising Bone Cement. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 53B:758–759, 1971. Homsy, C.A., Tullos, H.S-T., Anderson, M.S., Differante, N.M., and King, J.W. Some Physiological Aspects of Prosthesis Stabilization With Acrylic Polymer. Clin. Orthop., 83:317–328, 1972. Meyir, J.R., Lautenschlager, E.P., and Moore, E.K. On the Setting Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 55A:149–156, 1973.Google Scholar
28. Jefferies, C.D., Lee, A.J.C., and Ling, R.S.M. Thermal Aspects of Self-Curing Polymethylmethacrylate. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 578:511–518, 1975. Reckling, F.W. The Measurement of the Bone-Cement Interface Temperature During Total Joint Replacement Procedures. Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc., 1:61, 1976. Reckling, F.W. and Dillon, W.L. The Bone-Cement Interface Temperature During Total Joint Replacement. J. Bone and Jt. Surg., 59A:80–82, 1977.Google Scholar
29. Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials. ASTM E399–83. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1985.Google Scholar
30. Sih, G.G and Berman, A.T. Fracture Toughness Concept Applied to Methyl Methacrylate. J. Biomed. Mat. Res., 14:311–324, 1980.Google Scholar
31. Wright, T.M., Sullivan, D.J., and Arnoczy, S.P. The Effect of Antibiotic Additions on the Fracture Properties of Bone Cements. Acta Orthop. Scand., 55:414–418, 1984.Google Scholar
32. Rose, R.M., Martin, R.B., Orr, R.B., and Radin, E.L. Architectural Changes in the Proximal Femur Following Prosthetic Insertion: Preliminary Observations of an Animal Model. J. Biomech., 17:241–249, 1984.Google Scholar